Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/18 v3] libxl: fork and event fixes for libvirt and 4.4

[Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 03:03 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 00/18 v3] libxl: fork and event
>> fixes for libvirt and 4.4"):
>>> On 02/03/2014 04:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> This is the latest version of my libxl event fixes apropos of Jim's
>>>> libvirt testing.
>>> Did you have any opinions on the suitability of this for 4.4?
>> Sorry, I should have made that clear in the body text rather than just
>> the subject line.
>>
>> I think this needs a freeze exception on the following grounds:
>>
>>   * There is little change visible to non-eventy/thready callers and
>>     the risk of new races there is limited; basic functional testing
>>     ought to catch those errors.
>>
>>   * The most prominent eventy/thready caller we are currently aware of
>>     is libvirt.  Without these changes it is nearly impossible to have
>>     a reliable libvirt.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I think libvirt support for libxl is a really important functionality
> from a strategic perspective: a solid support should make it much
> easier to integrate with other projects such as OpenStack and
> Cloudstack, as well as (in theory) other tools built on top of libvirt.

Thanks for considering this series for inclusion in 4.4!

> So I'm inclined to consider this a blocker*; I think we should accept
> it and delay the release until we feel comfortable that it has been
> sufficiently tested.

I've been running libvirt-based tests that continuously start/shutdown
persistent domains, create/shutdown transient domains, save/restore
domains, and dump info on all these domains, for the past 35 hours.  The
tests have been restarted a few times, as I fine tune some libvirt
patches, but did run for 20 hours before the first restart.

Regards,
Jim


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel